Berners-Lee: Insidious government surveillance may be worse than outright censorship

US and UK drop in Web rankings for freedom and openness in 2013 Web Index.

The insidious nature of government spying has a chilling and subtle effect on Web freedoms that could ultimately be more damaging to society than outright censorship, World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee told the audience at the launch of the World Wide Web Foundation's 2013 Web Index findings.

"The question of 'who is it that's got the off switch for our connectivity' started to be asked because of Egypt," said Berners-Lee. "It's a rather obvious thing you can see happening, and a country that does that doesn't get very far. Turning off the Internet got the youths onto the streets because that's what they had left to do. So blocking of the Internet is kind of obvious. And censorship in places like China is obvious too when it comes to blocking whole websites. It's hard to pretend it doesn't exist when the rest of the Web has links to those websites.

"But spying is this insidious form, because of its chilling effect if you feel someone's looking over your shoulder, there's all kinds of things you will not do… [You're not going to be] able to use facilities because of nameless fear."

This year's Web Index was finished in September, so Berners-Lee suggests some countries may have ranked even lower considering the revelations of the past few months. The US and the UK predictably fell a few spots down the table on the sub-index Freedom and Openness. Though the UK came out third overall, one spot ahead of the US, it came 24th for Freedom and Openness. It came eighth for Universal Access, first for Relevant Content, and third for Empowerment.

It shows the contradiction that can exist between the public's perceived freedoms online, and the government's control of those freedoms. For instance, while the US is first for Empowerment—defined as "how far the Web is empowering people not just to receive information, but to voice their own views, participate in public affairs, and take action to improve their lives"—it came 27th for Freedom and Openness. Citizen empowerment and public engagement is concealing the darker underbelly of wider-spread abuses of personal privacy. "Provisions against cybercrime, terrorism, or blasphemy are frequently being employed to silence legitimate dissent or justify blanket digital surveillance," explains the report.

Anonymity is a key area where the state's agenda directly clashes with concepts of freedom, suggested Berners-Lee, and it will be a complex issue to solve.

"Some things are good, like the openness of government data, and some things are just bad. But anonymity is one where it's not so simple. NGOs that work under oppressive regimes and are in contact with the underground campaign for it. Then we have people dealing with cyber bullying where clearly if someone's saying nasty, mean untrue things about you then you can reveal who they are."

In any situation where users say they need a secondary identity, Berners-Lee says we need "a whole social system and machinery" around that service to protect others. Communities need to be self-monitoring so that anonymity can legitimately exist where necessary—as with whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Mass surveillance for everyone!

The revelations of the US and UK's mass surveillance of their own citizens could also have a knock-on effect among those countries employing more obvious means of censorship.

"In my work, I campaign in countries in a diplomatic way to explain why it's important for their economy and future to have freedom of expression," said Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, also at the Web Index launch. "Wikipedia provides a great platform for doing that, and in countries where it's blocked or restricted, it's hard to say we only block terrorists or pedophiles—it's not exactly a crazy thing. But when I'm sitting down with the state council information officer in China or Kazakhstan and saying to them, 'you're on the wrong side of history. This is not the approach that will be here with us in 20 years and it will look bad,' it's important to be able to point to the UK and US. And when we're no longer able to do that, it rings a little hollow to say 'you shouldn't be spying.'"

As such, Wales said it's important we as citizens voice our concerns before that mentality of entitlement makes matters worse. "We may trust GCHQ not to disappear activists, but China may feel more justified and will disappear activists. That's something we should be concerned about.

"I have some real concerns about the direction the Web is taking."

Rebecca MacKinnon, author of Consent of the Networked and cofounder of Global Voices Online, reiterated that now is the time for citizens to empower themselves and ensure these matters are not left to governments alone, a point backed up by the fact that 94 percent of all countries surveyed in the Index fail to meet "best practice standards for checks and balances on government interception of electronic communications."

"Trust no one unless you can hold them accountable," she said. "In China, where they block international sites heavily and control data tightly, they're saying from a national security point of view, we did exactly the right thing.

"There's potential for people to assert more localized power over how the Web is developing in their own countries. If that drive is coming from the government claiming to be acting on behalf of government, it's an excuse for more control and surveillance. The role of citizens in insisting on accountability is key."

Bright Simons, president of the mPedigree Network, said he doesn't believe trust has been irrevocably broken by the NSA-GCHQ revelations, mainly because people weren't all that trusting beforehand. "It's leading to a backlash of fascinating proportions. People are going to make a choice. There is awareness among citizens that it's an issue to be concerned about, and a greater level of citizen empowerment is needed. It's an important milestone in citizen digital rights."

Berners-Lee suggested that empowerment should be facilitated by the destruction of the gulf that exists between the technology world and the policy world—our technology pioneers should not be afraid to engage in political matters, and policymakers need to understand the tech when drafting relevant legislation.

"I spend a lot of time encouraging people to program, not just because we need some people to understand technology—we need lawyers and those in parliament to understand it, otherwise they're not going to be able to make appropriate steps." We need those with the technological knowledge to be writing policy as well as standards in protocols.

Despite the air of pessimism surrounding the Web Index 2013 launch in light of the state spying controversies, Berners-Lee remained positive about the many good things that are happening around the globe. According to the report, the Internet remains vital in catalyzing citizen action and real world change. Despite the fact that 30 percent of nations engage in targeted Web censorship and "moderate to extensive blocking or filtering of politically sensitive content," the Web and social media played a big role in "public mobilization" in 80 percent of nations.

"This is not being spearheaded by political parties and NGOs," said Anne Jellema, CEO of the World Wide Web Foundation. "It's spontaneous and grassroots action driven by social media." The Philippines, for instance, came 20 places higher in the table than its GDP per capita. This, she said, is because those connected are "active and creative users of the Web," as demonstrated last year when they fought back against a proposed cybercrime bill and ultimately crowd sourced its replacement, a bill of rights for the Internet. It demonstrates that wealth does not necessarily correlate to a free and open Web practice. In fact some of the world's wealthiest nations fell far short of the Web Index's standards. Saudi Arabia, for instance, lingered near the bottom of the table for all sub-indexes.

"I am optimistic," said Berners-Lee. "I think the people will win. I have faith in people and humanity as a whole. There's going to be some push back, but change will come in lots of different ways—from activism, but also UN resolutions. Also from within government. There are people that care about this stuff."

65 Reader Comments

I really hope I'm wrong, but i think the best we'll get is that some actors reduce their surveillance, while others will just make it appear they've reduced their surveillance. I don't think we're going to be able to completely eradicate pervasive government surveillance by all governments.

"This is for everyone" ... Including the various government agencies of the "free world".

I do have some fear that we are one McCarthy era away from computerized black lists. We're already seen some of it in Wisconsin. Conservative groups digitized the various petitions for recall and have been using them to black ball people from jobs. With surveillance we can cut out the middle man. Like to read HuffPost of Drudge?

Theoretically, at least, DRM is fine. In practice, it's frequently something despised which only serves to hurt paying customers and can, in fact, drive people to pirate. However, look at Steam. It's got DRM... and I don't care! It's a pretty light touch and is part of a package which includes many, many benefits.

While it's an outright lie to say every pirated copy is a lost sale, piracy does hurt sales. As long as that's true, people who make money by providing static information (such as music, non-server based games, movies) will need a way to protect that information. Which means DRM.

Theoretically, at least, DRM is fine. In practice, it's frequently something despised which only serves to hurt paying customers and can, in fact, drive people to pirate. However, look at Steam. It's got DRM... and I don't care! It's a pretty light touch and is part of a package which includes many, many benefits.

Or iOS, where nobody even notices it has DRM unless they try to pirate something.

While it's an outright lie to say every pirated copy is a lost sale, piracy does hurt sales. As long as that's true, people who make money by providing static information (such as music, non-server based games, movies) will need a way to protect that information. Which means DRM.

As someone who currently makes a living creating intellectual property, I think the world would be a better place if we removed DRM and people simply gave up all attempts to make millions of dollars selling static content to teenagers who have no money.

"But spying is this insidious form, because of its chilling effect if you feel someone's looking over your shoulder, there's all kinds of things you will not do… [You're not going to be] able to use facilities because of nameless fear."

The only chilling effect I see from "spying" is overcoming daunting technical barriers of arcane encryption software.

I really hope I'm wrong, but i think the best we'll get is that some actors reduce their surveillance, while others will just make it appear they've reduced their surveillance. I don't think we're going to be able to completely eradicate pervasive government surveillance by all governments.

The more data traffic we encrypt, the harder it is for spy agencies to abuse our privacy. I don't object to the idea that a law enforcement agency can go to a judge and get a warrant if I'm suspected of a crime. What I object to is the wholesale vacuuming up of every piece of data I send or receive, just in case they want it at some point in the future. The latter practice is what will lead to the next Nixon having my tax returns audited because I'm so liberal.

In my opinion, it's not legitimate crime fighting tools that are the threat, it's the idea of putting a camera in every living room because some people smoke pot. I know my privacy is very limited when I'm walking down the street, but I should be left alone in my home, and by extension on my phone and PC, until I've done something sufficient to justify a warrant.

Sadly, what keeps Flash around is their DRM. Sure, IT and the lower echelons of big media knows DRM is in the end a smoke and mirrors act. But i think Doctorow hit it on the head when he compared it to Lysenkoism during Stalin's reign. Until a new generation of bosses get control over big media, you need DRM to get anything past their noses.

I agree, this is chilling of speech. Although industry is enabling this with their insatiable desire to track and collect all of our information too. I don't have to look any further than this webpage to see all the ad trackers and analytics that have become embedded into the web.

I already self censor. People forget that we're really not far removed from our terrible animalistic nature, and that those with power will use that nature to get what they want, and they don't give a single fuck about you, your family, or your friends.

Spy on me all you want. Intercept my naughty texts to my wife all you want. Heck, you might learn a thing or two about what it's like to be a real man. Watch my every move. You'll find nothing of value. I don't do anything illegal on or off the grid so read my generally mind-numbing "ars" comments all you want. I live in Moses Lake, Washington. I grew up on a dairy farm. I've been married for 10 years and I have 2 maltese dogs named Puffy and Snowball and my name is Kevin. I consider myself a conservative minded thinker but I hate all politics. I'm allergic to eggs, wheat, milk, soy, bakers yeast, brewers yeast, carrots, onions, parsley, kale, chives, apples, anything fermented or preserved, most nuts, all berries, grapes and any fruit skins. I have wicked sinus allergies to most pollens and they cripple my brain when I'm exposed to them. I had 3 surgeries last year totaling $29k before insurance. I've been unemployed since may of 2012. I like to bowl and I play a wicked piano. There, use my info however you want. I ignore all ads on the internet. What will become of me now that everybody knows everything about me??? Nothing. There are 315 million of us to spy on. Chances are they're only going after the most egregious of criminals and not the farm boy from Moses Lake.

Let's see if you're so belligerently anti-privacy when you get denied for a health insurance policy or passed over for a job because of those surgeries. Not to mention that just because you're unconcerned with privacy doesn't mean anyone else should be.

Since you think privacy is a joke, let me ask, would you object to someone peering in your bathroom window while you're getting ready to start your day? When I sit on the throne reading my morning newspaper, I'm probably not doing anything the NSA spy didn't do that morning. But that doesn't mean I want him to watch me, any more than I want to watch him. I'd guess that the vast majority of Ars users don't have anything to hide, but that in no way equates to not caring about privacy.

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

You probably would if you were an interesting, successful person, who moves in academic and innovative circles, and any politicians you meet pretend to agree with you so that they can benefit from some reflected glow of your brilliance.

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

Since when US citizens are fearful to criticize the US government?

Since McCarthy got elected. It's not like that's ancient history, there are people still alive who can remember McCarthyism, and it could happen again.

The only people that worry about privacy are the ones that are doing shady things that they'd rather not have exposed to the world.

I'd alter this to: The only people that worry about privacy are the ones that have things that they'd rather not have exposed to the world. Minor change, but pretty big difference. I don't want all my life's details exposed to everyone, but I am a particularly private person.

I do have some fear that we are one McCarthy era away from computerized black lists.

Companies already have enough access to information where they can start quantifying and categorizing people to create black lists, if they wanted. There are laws for employment and insurance etc., so the effect might be limited.

While this article is specifically about the government, neither of these statements are limited to just the government. If I allow myself to peek at the future... people want government transparency, but what we will get is full transparency on everyone; all the information the government has will eventually be available to corporations one way or another. And whats available to corporations, will be available to everyone for cheap eventually.

Perhaps more important (at least more personal), are the social implications. You might unintentionally upset someone and find yourself harassed (SWATted, phone calls, credit card charges, threats to your wife) for the next few years. If the other person was more interested in keeping their own privacy, there might be no recourse.

If I were to follow you around 24 hours a day with a video camera, would you feel free to pick your nose, sing in the shower, talk to yourself, or drive a little over the speed limit?

Enjoy me! I am not going to stop doing my stuff because of that. And i never drive over the limit anyways, or at least i try to not do it , it does not matters if nobody is watching me. I should not do it in the first place.

That argument reminds me some religious people. They must behave "well" because "God" is everywhere watching them all the time ! "God" even knows what they are thinking . That kind of surveillance is impossible to avoid.

"If i weren't a Christian who follows jesus, i wouldn't have any morals and i wouldn't be a good person ". Gosh! Maybe some people need to feel surveilled by their imaginary god after all!

So what is people afraid of exactly in terms of freedom? is not real freedom if you can no do it freely

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

True, but for the 99% of people who will never engage in civil disobedience, this isn't a compelling warning. Trotting out the famous Niemöller "first they came" quote gets the idealistic and the forward-thinking but it's not enough for a mass movement. There's a lot of "privacy is good because...yeah!" but that isn't doing much to motivate anyone who isn't already involved in the debate.

What we desperately need is a clear and accessible explanation of exactly why this erosion of privacy is inconvenient for most Americans (not just activists), right now, or in the immediate future, in ways they can feel in their every day lives. (the health care example everyone uses is starting to fall flat because of how Obamacare prevents (most?) screening for pre-existing conditions) Forget alluding to the Bill of Rights; we've all seen how much that matters. Without such an explanation, you won't get the traction you need to reverse the momentum.

Now, Tim... I agree with Tim Berners-Lee that insidious surveillance is dangerous because it erodes freedom in ways we don't immediately perceive, so we're likely to self-censor and less likely to take direct action against the government -- boiling the frog and all that.

But guess what? All surveillance is like that to some degree. Life in China (I live here) doesn't feel oppressive. I avoid discussing politics online, don't take pictures of people with uniforms and guns, and that's that -- not a big deal as long as I only care about my little world.

And come on, making these constant comparisons with China and saying "Yeah, what's going on here might be just as bad someday" is a little like calling your punk little brother Edward Snowden because he told mommy what you did. It reeks of ignorance and rhetoric.

Censorship in China is getting worse. In September the government wrote a law sentencing to 3 years in jail anyone who tweeted (e.g. on Weibo) a "rumor" that got re-tweeted more than 500 times. So what you had before were these super-popular verified accounts that were sort of pushing the envelope with respect to political discourse. What you have now? Crickets. Oh, and "punishments" for violating the law. (Here's a great podcast that provides a quick introduction)

Why is everyone so up-in-arms about censorship in China? Because it prevents anyone from addressing the massive-scale violation of human rights and destruction and reallocation of wealth (i.e. corruption) that's happening here. The fact that censorship helps keep the CCP in power is kind of secondary -- if they really were as glorious as CCTV makes them out to be then it wouldn't be such a big deal.

But that "destruction and reallocation of wealth" sounds a lot like what's happening in the US. Where's the open and transparent dialogue about that? Congress won't touch it because they love their campaign contributions, and the media won't badger them into fixing it because it doesn't turn a profit. Oops, looks like the censorship is already done, no NSA necessary.

I'd prefer an elected government, accountable to the People, doing the snooping than Google and Facebook reading, collecting, parsing, 1,000 times the data the NSA does, and selling it to the highest bidder.

No. Last time I checked google and facebook and "the highest bidder" does not control a massive arm of people working in military/police/justice. The potential for harm if the government or a government employee goes bad is far worse than a corporation or corporate employee.

Google and Facebook are not even close to having enough money or resources to do even a fraction as much data mining as the NSA. It would send them bankrupt if they tried. The NSA is processing 29 petabytes of data _per day_. Google and Facebook combined don't even come close to that much.

Also, anything and everything google/facebook gather is _also_ being gathered by the NSA, so it's a double evil.

At least we have the Freedom of Information Act, and we can pass laws that deter runaway government snooping.

You can't pass laws, because they won't pass. The only laws that are passing are ones that make government snooping worse. And while acts like FoIA are a good idea in theory, in practice they have completely failed to prevent runaway government snooping.

Hopefully one day something can be done, but don't fool yourself. Nothing anybody has done so far is enough. It's not working.

Why is everyone so up-in-arms about censorship in China? ...[Cogent and compelling answer removed].

But that ... sounds a lot like what's happening in the US... [Sharp observations removed]

Dude, nice point but you made a rookie mistake: you buried the lead! Everyone should read the last part of your long post, but I fear many will not make it that far. I tried to help by using the provocative quotes above.

Obamacare almost ended my health insurance coverage. I won't apply for any job that disturbs my rear end (they were all hemorrhoid surgeries. wrap your brain around that). Peer through my bathroom window all you want (again, you might learn a thing or two). The only people that worry about privacy are the ones that are doing shady things that they'd rather not have exposed to the world. Everybody that doesn't fall into that category shouldn't worry. These stories are for shock value and not much else.

Are you serious? Wow, where do I even begin? Do you truly believe that ridiculous "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" bullshit? That's only possibly true in a perfect utopian society where the legal system actually dispenses universal justice and where the politicians and other powerful people operate for the good of everyone instead of just themselves. Neither of these things has ever been true in the entire history of the human race.

Everyone has something to hide. If you don't think you do, then you simply haven't identified it yet. The only reason you might possibly not have to worry is because you're boring. People like you need to remember that lawful and right are not synonymous terms, any more than unlawful and wrong.

You may enjoy being watched while taking a crap, but many of us do not. It doesn't mean that I "have something to hide" in the sense that you seem to mean it, just that I believe it is no one else's business. In a free society, I should not have to wonder or worry about the government collecting information on me without a specific warrant if they have actual evidence of criminal activity.

Enjoy me! I am not going to stop doing my stuff because of that. And i never drive over the limit anyways, or at least i try to not do it , it does not matters if nobody is watching me. I should not do it in the first place.

That argument reminds me some religious people. They must behave "well" because "God" is everywhere watching them all the time ! "God" even knows what they are thinking . That kind of surveillance is impossible to avoid.

"If i weren't a Christian who follows jesus, i wouldn't have any morals and i wouldn't be a good person ". Gosh! Maybe some people need to feel surveilled by their imaginary god after all!

So what is people afraid of exactly in terms of freedom? is not real freedom if you can no do it freely

So you've managed to reach the conclusion that the NSA are setting themselves up to be God, but you still can't see any problem with the situation?

I've had trouble being POed about the NSA's surveillance. I've encrypted most of my traffic and data since before it was cool to do so, I was using KeePass before the rash of hacks in 2011. I take active steps to hinder surveillance regardless of the source. My browser runs Noscript + adblock+ + ghostery + https-everywhere. I had the last-latter plugin the day of release. Hipster cred aside - I don't like being scrutinized, no one does.

There's something going on here that I feel is being missed by a lot of the more popular Ars comments.

In a single sentence, the same first world populace that wants to gamble and buy drugs, weapons, weapons blueprints and assassinations anonymously using tax-free currency wants to be able to DDoS websites they disagree with using their anonymizing tools, call their police force, their pizza delivery people, and swarms of fedex guys out to bully people they do not like - wants protection from identity thieves, hackers, child pornographers and arms dealers, gamblers, stalkers, mass shooters and bombers.

It's a paradox that has a right answer, but it's only the best answer if everyone agrees to it. We have to stop screwing each other over, stop profiting off of others' loss, stop abusing one another and stop playing stupid games with one another as a race.

Otherwise, we are under a social contract to give up certain liberties in exchange for the protection of certain rights that should need no protection what-so-ever if people would, as my little brother succinctly put, "not be dicks to each other".

What I see happening and what disturbs me is that, under the premise of regaining certain 'lost' liberties, certain segments of the population have decided to selectively interpret the social contract outside of how it is generally accepted. Bitcoins, Tor, and other tools - when used to thwart the government we put in place to secure our rights - turn the government from a tool to protect our rights into a tool to bear down all the harder on us.

Now I have a question I ask myself when I look at things like this: "Who wins?" Who's winning? The majority of the population is about to lose additional liberties to secure rights that are being threatened by people trying to secure seemingly lost liberties and simultaneously threatening others' rights. When the government responds as they're charged to do when certain fundamental rights are threatened, and strips away additional liberties from the masses, does anyone gain?

For the U.S.A.:The popular answer right now is to blame the government created to defend our rights from people who would attempt to overpower us and take them from us. This comes at a cost. The cute answer is to say the costs outweigh the benefits now-a-days, but is it a realistic answer? I don't think so.

If I were to follow you around 24 hours a day with a video camera, would you feel free to pick your nose, sing in the shower, talk to yourself, or drive a little over the speed limit?

Enjoy me! I am not going to stop doing my stuff because of that. And i never drive over the limit anyways, or at least i try to not do it , it does not matters if nobody is watching me. I should not do it in the first place.

That argument reminds me some religious people. They must behave "well" because "God" is everywhere watching them all the time ! "God" even knows what they are thinking . That kind of surveillance is impossible to avoid.

"If i weren't a Christian who follows jesus, i wouldn't have any morals and i wouldn't be a good person ". Gosh! Maybe some people need to feel surveilled by their imaginary god after all!

So what is people afraid of exactly in terms of freedom? is not real freedom if you can no do it freely

There is an adage you may not be familiar with which asserts that: Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

There is more than ample historical evidence to reveal the undeniable truth in those words. The NSA (& by extension the greater United States government) is asserting their entitlement to the exercise of powers that are undisclosed & unbridled in any meaningful way. In doing so they reject the concept of accountability while they flagrantly, unapologetically, & brazenly mock the United States Constitution.

You may not recognize any immediate personal ill effects resulting from what might be considered early days of "The Surveillance State". With time, you'll feel this encroachment eroding your life, assaulting your sensibilities & far worse, witness it doing the same to the lives of your children.

Of course by then it will be either too late or inestimably harder to salvage what remains of a failed & crumbling, yet once noble endeavor; undertaken in the cause of establishing & maintaining a process of enlightened self governance.

(Edited to clean up sentence structure & to note the assumption that the reader resides in the U.S. & has kids.)

If I were to follow you around 24 hours a day with a video camera, would you feel free to pick your nose, sing in the shower, talk to yourself, or drive a little over the speed limit?

Enjoy me! I am not going to stop doing my stuff because of that. And i never drive over the limit anyways, or at least i try to not do it , it does not matters if nobody is watching me. I should not do it in the first place.

That argument reminds me some religious people. They must behave "well" because "God" is everywhere watching them all the time ! "God" even knows what they are thinking . That kind of surveillance is impossible to avoid.

"If i weren't a Christian who follows jesus, i wouldn't have any morals and i wouldn't be a good person ". Gosh! Maybe some people need to feel surveilled by their imaginary god after all!

So what is people afraid of exactly in terms of freedom? is not real freedom if you can no do it freely

There is an adage you may not be familiar with which asserts that: Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

There is more than ample historical evidence to reveal the undeniable truth in those words. The NSA (& by extension the greater United States government) is asserting their entitlement to the exercise of powers that are undisclosed & unbridled in any meaningful way. In doing so they reject the concept of accountability while they flagrantly, unapologetically, & brazenly mock the United States Constitution.

You may not recognize any immediate personal ill effects resulting from what might be considered early days of "The Surveillance State". With time, you'll feel this encroachment eroding your life, assaulting your sensibilities & far worse, witness it doing the same to the lives of your children.

Of course by then it will be either too late or inestimably harder to salvage what remains of a failed & crumbling, yet once noble endeavor; undertaken in the cause of establishing & maintaining a process of enlightened self governance.

(Edited to clean up sentence structure & to note the assumption that the reader resides in the U.S. & has kids.)

Its power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

Since when US citizens are fearful to criticize the US government?

Depends on what citizens you are talking about. Journalists are very afraid of critizing the government and big corporation too much, because they might lose privileged access.

"This is for everyone" ... Including the various government agencies of the "free world".

I do have some fear that we are one McCarthy era away from computerized black lists. We're already seen some of it in Wisconsin. Conservative groups digitized the various petitions for recall and have been using them to black ball people from jobs. With surveillance we can cut out the middle man. Like to read HuffPost of Drudge?

It instills fear of provoking the government with critical statements.Think civil disobedience, but even if you mask yourself, the gov can x-ray your face to match your dental records. Well, or something like that, I'm tired so this analogy may be rubbish.

Since when US citizens are fearful to criticize the US government?

Since McCarthy got elected. It's not like that's ancient history, there are people still alive who can remember McCarthyism, and it could happen again.

It's still going on. Every time somebody accuse someone of "being a socialist", they're basically throwing around the McCarthy flavor of the day since communism is no longer the fearmongering scarecrow of choice.